Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

I have received a 'Letter Before Claim' from Gladstones and I was hoping for some advice. I have read a lot on the forums, but I have just confused myself.

Some history:

A person parked on private land, and overstayed their complimentary parking by a few minutes. They received a parking charge in the post (in their name, but wrong title). The person appealed.

The parking company responded by rejecting the appeal, but the letter and response was addressed to me (my name but wrong title). I am not the registered keeper nor the registered owner nor did the driver give them my details. So I ignored it. I still don!!!8217;t know how they got my details, or why they addressed the appeal response to me.

Following a letter from a debt recovery company (also addressed to me, which I ignored), I have now received a !!!8216;Letter Before Claim!!!8217; from Gladstone Solicitors saying I have 14 days to pay up or respond.

Should I respond, or should I wait till court papers arrive? And am I mistaken for not responding to them sooner given the mix up on their part?

If it goes to court, will the fact that I never received a parking charge notice in my name make a difference?

if it is a REAL lbc from GLADS , and not a DRP letter in disguise, then respond with a rebuttal letter (not that GLADS will read it or action it)

prepare for a court claim MCOL in the next few weeks , regardless of what you write

and as this is CIVIL court, its a one off deal and no previous will be taken into account , certainly not like in speeding prosecutions etc

its a simple dispute over an unpaid invoice , nothing more

its not a murder trial , think of it as like Judge Rinder without all the theatrics , dont give it more weight than what it is

Newbies !!
Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se

I am not the driver, owner or keeper of the vehicle. I am unsure how this mix up on your part occurred. However, now that I have provided you with this information under the data protection act you are obliged to update your records accordingly. It is an offense under the act if you do not do this.

Please confirm you have done this within 14 days.

This puts you in a good position for a DPA counterclaim if they are stupid enough to file a claim.

you dont want a cranky judge asking why you ignored the LBC and did not reply to the LBC , in other words you wont want GLADS saying they followed the pre-court protocol and you failed to do so

you want to show a court you tried everything possible and that you denied the alleged debt IN WRITING , like sending the hoohoo letter above

the last thing you want is to be sidetracked and hoodwinked in court due to not sending a debt denied letter with a 60p stamp on it

and NEVER give out information that can be used by a claimant

Newbies !!
Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se

I have done the online AOS and have put together a draft defence. Please let me know what you think. I will try to post a picture of the claim particulars.

Thanks in advance

1. I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant, deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of the claim.

2. The defendant has previously written to the claimant informing them that the defendant is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

3. The defendant does not know how the claimant has obtained their details, and has previously requested that the claimant update their records after informing them of the above in line with the data protection act, which the claimant has failed to do.

4. The defendant has previously informed the claimant in writing that they were not the driver of the car on the day and place in question. The defendant can prove that they were at work, approximately 40 miles away from the car park at the time of the alleged breach of contract.

5. The claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence.

6. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the defendant. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A).

7. No indication is given as to the claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says; “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

8. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

9. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

10. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘robo-claims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point.

11. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply made up numbers. The claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

12.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

12.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of the wasted time & costs in dealing with this matter.

14. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above and due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.

15. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

So the driver appealed (and the driver is known to you) but the reply - for some unknown reason - came back to you, maybe at the same address(?) but this is nothing to do with you, and you neither drive nor 'keep' this car?

Yes that's correct. The driver appealed the ticket, but the parking company responded to me instead (for reasons that are unknown). I am insured on the car and do sometimes drive it, but I didn't drive it on that day nor am I the registered keeper/owner.

So I ignored it until I got the letter before claim from Gladstones and sent them the response that was recommended above in post 6. I then received the county court claim form about 2 weeks ago.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.